I think when a person signs up for their body samples to be used for research purposes, they lose the right to have a say regarding what happens to their samples or how they are being used for research. But ethics in medical research is still a grey area. For example, culturing cells to identify and understand the patterns and functioning of a disease without tapping into the genomic framework of the donor’s DNA might be acceptable. But genomic research without consent is a breach of privacy of not only of the donor but also of members of his/her family and would definitely require consent before their samples are used for research and publication of its results.

Commercialization of research samples in my view point is both good and bad but not the right way to promote research. It encourages more people to passively participate in medical research which broadens the scope for availability of a large ‘variety’ of data but it also opens doors for exploitation. In the case of Henrietta Lacks, it would be unfair to claim royalty or compensation because there’s also invaluable amount of data that is extracted from clinical trials from scores of patients across the world whose samples have paved way for formulating drugs that can benefit generations to come. If everybody participating in clinical trials claimed the same compensation, that wouldn’t be a practical way to deal with solving problems in our world. As the motto of healthcare and clinical trials always stands, one needs to participate in medical research with an intention of helping people and not for monetary purposes.